RMS TItanic Inc Seeks Permission To Sell Artifacts

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
277
4
148
Aloha neighbor!

First, a question: What is a pirate's favorite letter? (answer below)

One point for you: Geller didnt sell shares to his friends. He GAVE them away. Where you or I would have to pay for shares and a commission to the selling institution, Geller's friends received almost 5 million shares and share options at no cost.

For example, Graham Jessop received 600,000 shares in exchange for "intangible assets" which we strongly believe to be treasure maps to 10 to 12 shipwrecks. Jessop also purchased the 'rights' to Carpathia from the Receiver of Wreck (correct term) in England for what we believe to be less than $250, then traded the Carpathia rights to RMSTI for another 1.1+ MILLION shares and his "intangible assets" back.

So, at the time of the "takeover", Geller's side had 50.1% (+/-) of the 16 million shares, and has lost support from that group, but has added several million shares to his side GRATIS.

Answer to the pirate question: Aaaarrrrrgh! (R)

Have a wonderful one! Just 359 more shopping days til Christmas!

Bill
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,584
376
283
Easley South Carolina
ARRRRRRRRRRR Matey, this be Capn' Blood speakin'. Givin' away the shares, 'ay matey? Me thinks the smell is getting riper still. About time we cleaned out the bilges...and maybe a few rats lurking within.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!
Capn' Blood
 
R

Robert W. Collier

Guest
Mike, quick, go get the whip, and I'll get the line so he can "marry the gunners daughter". :)
Robert
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
1
148
Aye, sounds like a'keel haulin' is in order. You of all people know, Mr. Standart, that's serious on a big steel ship. >:D In my opinion, if they can't give the collection in one piece to a museum collection with the proviso that it remain intact indefinitely, it would be nice to see Geller personally finance the safe return of most, if not all, the artifacts to the wreck site.

Of course, that's just me.


Adam
 

Teri Lynn Milch

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2001
1,053
2
0
Hi Bill,

Am I correct in assessing that there are two separate entities here: Tulloch's proposal and Geller's appellate hearing? What weight does Tulloch's proposal have in the appellate hearing, if any?

The judge would HAVE to see the fact that Geller's other "new" organization has no basis for foundation and no funds attached to it. I can't see a judge allowing an empty organization without non-profit status and without funds to take over preserved historical artifacts. He should be banned from practicing law if he does allow this to happen. I am not a vengeful person by any means, but justice should be served in the event the judge allows a basically worthless "non-profit" organization to take over precious artifacts.

And the next topic is the shareholders. From what I gleaned in your last post, the shareholders of the company have basically been ignored and been given no status-quo of the company. They must be outraged too, by now.

It is really a terrible feeling to be sitting here reading all this taking place and me being powerless to do nothing about it. Yuck. If there is something I could do, let me know and I'll get on it right away.

I do hope the year 2002 shines brightly on the artifacts and that they remain in the public's view wherever their new home is.

Michael Standart,

I fully agree, this whole thing smells badly.

Sincerely,

Teri
 

Teri Lynn Milch

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2001
1,053
2
0
To Mark Taylor:

Since I have not seen your name here before, I looked at your profile. You are the moderator of a Titanic list I am not a member of. (And I thought I had checked out all Titanic lists. Well, guess I have a little more searching on the web to do, huh.)

Upon reading the index page of your site, I found your RMS Titanic Inc Quarterly Income Statement:

http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/s/sost.ob.html

It is very nicely laid out. I am not a financial analyst, but the figures do appear staggering.

Anyways, nice to meet you, Mark Taylor.

Sincerely,

Teri

P.S. George Behe, I see this one particular photo (always says photo courtesy of George Behe) of the ship on practically every other Titanic website I visit. We must be collecting such a profit on that one picture!
happy.gif
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,584
376
283
Easley South Carolina
Adam Leet said; "Aye, sounds like a'keel haulin' is in order. You of all people know, Mr. Standart, that's serious on a big steel ship."

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr laddie, this be Capn' Blood here. Aye, tis true that keelhauling with a steel ship is a serious matter, but me "fishies" don't mind. I just hope they don't get indigestion!
proud.gif


Aaaaarrrrr,
Capn' Blood
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,265
0
0
Hi, Teri!

No money was involved -- just friendship. Mark is a good friend of mine, and I sent him a scan of one of my old Titanic postcards so that he could use it on his website. I was happy to help out.

Please contact me privately and I'll let you know how to join Mark's Titanic Discuss mailing list. It's an excellent historical resource, and you won't be sorry you joined.

All my best,

George
 

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
277
4
148
Teri,

Tulloch's proposal was in the discussion stage while he was President of RMSTI. It was a raw proposal with merit, but needed work and government approval from two governments.

Tulloch was ousted in a definitely-hostile takeover in November of '99. Tulloch's idea wasted away, I surmise, due to the fact Geller had other ideas for the artifacts.

Geller, as the now-CEO (his title) of RMSTI wants permission to sell artifacts and/or transfer them to his foundation, formed in Georgia with himself as CEO.

The two Judges involved are the Honorable Judge J. Calvitt Clarke and the Honorable Judge Rebecca Beach Smith. Both have been involved together for over a year now, as Judge Clarke is aging and Judge Smith will be his successor.

Both Judges have taken little quarter to attempts to circumvent the straight-lined orders from the bench. In three hearings now, Geller has brought up transferring/selling/conveying the artifacts to his foundation. The Judges have repeatedly said they will not approve any deal until they see it in writing and examine it. And then Geller never presents a specific deal. It's happened three times now. Judge Smith and Judge Clarke are, in my opinion, acting very responsibly toward protecting the artifacts.

This is where an interesting dance is occurring. No proposals are submitted. Geller is appealing the authority of the Judges to oversee these artifacts. It is speculation that he has no particular deal, he just wants the freedom to do what he wants with the artifacts. Again, that is speculation.

The appellate court has moved the tentative date for the hearing to March.

As far as Geller's foundation, according to the 9/24 transcript, his foundation has applied for 501-3-c status, but it hadn't been granted at that time. It may have been approved since then.

>>And the next topic is the shareholders. From what I gleaned in your last post, the shareholders of the company have basically been ignored and been given no status-quo of the company. They must be outraged too, by now.

Yes. Only the very close friends of Geller are involved. No shareholder meetings have occurred to my knowledge. We have been outraged for over a year now. Several members of a message board called 'Raging Bull' have been discussing our displeasure for some time. As of today, there are almost 2700 posts. Now also the members are using freerealtime.com as well. Both boards are under the stock symbol SOST.

Here's something you maybe didn't know. In April of last year, Geller, acting as an officer of RMSTI, filed suit against 7 people on the board. Three were sued by name, and four by aliases, for $1 million dollars each. The Raging Bull 7 were victorious because the case had no merit and was thrown out. So Geller, instead of giving his shareholders a voice, tried to silence one of the voices they used instead.

As far as anything you can do, we first must wait to see if the appellate court will hear the appeal. Thanks for thinking of the artifacts. With enough of us, the right thing will be done.

Bill
 
Jan 29, 2001
1,282
0
166
Please excuse this belated response. Actually according to a reliable source...one who is an experienced wreck diver himself, and very fond of the "Empress of Ireland" (You know the one I mean
happy.gif
The expeditioners who applied (and won)
for the incipient salvage of S.S. Central America had more than a photograph in-hand that day. In the other hand were a chunk of the Central America's coal!

Michael Cundiff
 

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
277
4
148
The latest update on the appellate court hearing:

The tentative date for oral arguments is now March 2.

Bill
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,242
5
198
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Thank you Bill for all your info. I would really like to see George Tulloch back at the helm, since he cared about the artifacts. I sincerely hope that they go to Belfast, even though the traveling is long. As long as they are away from greedy collectors, keeping them safe is all that matters in my opinion.

Hopefully this mess will be sorted out and I agree with Michael, it does smell!

Best regards,

Jason
happy.gif
 

Mark Taylor

Member
Mar 18, 2005
52
0
76
Attn Teri:

Thanks for your kind words about my Titanic news site. I try to have the most recent information about Titanic (and other things as well).

About that picture. Originally it was going to be of George in his famous "carrot" suit but alas that scared the Internet filters and gave my site the highest rating to avoid! :) (Just kidding of course).

I have obtained the appellate brief made by RMS Titanic so I am going through it. Basically it boils down to one argument that since they are the salvors that they have the right to do as the want with the artifacts.

Mark Taylor
titanicnewschannel.com
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,584
376
283
Easley South Carolina
>>"Basically it boils down to one argument that since they are the salvors that they have the right to do as the want with the artifacts."<<

An intersting attitude as the courts so far seem to have been of the conterary opinion.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Teri Lynn Milch

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2001
1,053
2
0
Hello Mark,

I understand what you're saying about the appellate brief, but what about the original salvor's document that gave them "material possession" in the first place? Do you know if that document states anything about selling the artifacts, or preserving the artifacts, and most importantly, does it state anything about keeping the artifacts on public display? Those are the important questions that the judges, in my opinion, should be paying great attention to. I mean surely it states something about that.

<<Basically it boils down to one argument that since they are the salvors that they have the right to do as the want with the artifacts.>>

While this may be true, the judges still need physical tangible evidence of a sale, don't they?

Teri
 

Teri Lynn Milch

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2001
1,053
2
0
Hi Bill ~

In answer to your post dated Wednesday, January 2, 2002 - 03:37 am:

<<Our fears as shareholders point back to what we believe is an intent to sell to any purchaser. We've seen phrases that allude to private interests being able to purchase artifacts with no obligations for displaying them to the public. This would be an option that would separate and privatize the artifacts. We are not in favor of this to any degree.>>

Let's hope that the SEC do something to protect you and the other shareholders before Geller sells to any private interest who don't care to display the artifacts. I know you and the other shareholders have rights that should be protected.

I wish to express my sentiments for all the shareholders.

Sincerely,

Teri
 

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
277
4
148
Teri,

Judge Clarke has expressed that he gave salvor status to RMSTI because of RMSTI's position that they would never sell the artifacts, unless they sold it as a collection, to an entity who would preserve the artifacts and keep them on public display (such as a museum). Any such sale would be presented to the court for approval prior to such a sale.

RMSTI, under Tulloch and even Geller, have repeated the promise throughtout hearings and filings. Now, Geller is trying to go back on the previous stance of the company. He had thirty days to challenge any of the orders from the court but technically waived the right when he silently acquiesced (I'm no legal expert. This is what I've been presented with, so take it as unofficial).

Bill
 

Mark Taylor

Member
Mar 18, 2005
52
0
76
> Do you know if that document states anything about selling the artifacts, or preserving the artifacts, and most importantly, does it state anything about keeping the artifacts on public display?<

As Bill pointed out, the original salvage award was made on the promise that in the event of artifact sale that such be done as a collection and with court approval. However the key question is not whether the promise was made (it was) but whether such a promise is legally binding particularly if the company has changed hands (which it has).

RMS Titanic argues that such a promise,even if made, cannot be legally binding and nor can the court tell what to do with private property. And they do have impressive case law to back them up on this. While many here may want to the artifacts to be kept whole and in a museum, the law may not support that contention. The appeals court may find the lower court has no power to tell RMS Titanic how to dispose of the artifacts.

Anyone who has followed this story from the very beginning (when Tulloch was ousted) is not surprised by this. It was made clear by some early statements what they wanted to do with Titanic.